Are the elite aware that their Malthusian agenda will negatively impact their own way of life after it's fully implemented? There is a required number of people to maintain our level of civilization and it's far higher than 500M. The 'civilization' they are trying to rule over is not the civilization they actually want to rule over.
RegalBeagle
boosted
🇬🇷
Stop being sarcastic and just let the things you hate rot.
Just wish for them to get more of the same.
Or make things better. Stop whining to get recognition, demonstrate your worth instead.
Just wish for them to get more of the same.
Or make things better. Stop whining to get recognition, demonstrate your worth instead.
(IS COOKING AGAIN)
RegalBeagle
boosted
This is your daily dose of collapse
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships
RegalBeagle
boosted
Third Man, Of The Heavenly Love Of Christmas
>In the 1970s the general aviation aircraft industry was selling 15,000 or more aircraft a year but that number fell by a factor of about 10 in the early 1980s. What happened? One factor was a massive increase in tort liability as discussed in my paper with Eric Helland, Product Liability and Moral Hazard: Evidence from General Aviation. Another factor was ever-increasing FAA regulation.
>But Max Tabarrok raises an interesting puzzle. It’s not at all obvious that the regulation of personal aircraft has been more strict than that of automobiles. So why the big difference in outcomes? There is, however, one small but potentially very important difference between the regulation of cars and aircraft.
>"By far the costliest part of the FAA’s regulation is not any particular standard imposed on pilot training, liability, or aircraft safety, but a slight shift in the grammatical tense of all these rules. The Department of Transportation (DOT) sets strict safety requirements for cars, but manufacturers are allowed to release new designs without first getting the DOT to sign off that all the requirements have been satisfied. The law is enforced ex post, and the government will impose recalls and fines when manufacturers fail to follow the law.
>The FAA, by contrast, enforces all of its safety rules ex ante. Before aircraft manufacturers can do anything with a design, they have to get the FAA’s signoff, which can take more than a decade. This regulatory approach also makes the FAA far more risk-averse, since any problems with an aircraft after release are blamed on the FAA’s failure to catch them. With ex post enforcement, the companies that failed to follow the law would be blamed, and the FAA rewarded, for enforcing recall.
>This subtle difference in the ordering of legal enforcement is the major cause of the stagnation of aircraft design and manufacturing."
'Murka is not like what it used to pretend to be.
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/09/why-dont-we-have-flying-cars.html
>But Max Tabarrok raises an interesting puzzle. It’s not at all obvious that the regulation of personal aircraft has been more strict than that of automobiles. So why the big difference in outcomes? There is, however, one small but potentially very important difference between the regulation of cars and aircraft.
>"By far the costliest part of the FAA’s regulation is not any particular standard imposed on pilot training, liability, or aircraft safety, but a slight shift in the grammatical tense of all these rules. The Department of Transportation (DOT) sets strict safety requirements for cars, but manufacturers are allowed to release new designs without first getting the DOT to sign off that all the requirements have been satisfied. The law is enforced ex post, and the government will impose recalls and fines when manufacturers fail to follow the law.
>The FAA, by contrast, enforces all of its safety rules ex ante. Before aircraft manufacturers can do anything with a design, they have to get the FAA’s signoff, which can take more than a decade. This regulatory approach also makes the FAA far more risk-averse, since any problems with an aircraft after release are blamed on the FAA’s failure to catch them. With ex post enforcement, the companies that failed to follow the law would be blamed, and the FAA rewarded, for enforcing recall.
>This subtle difference in the ordering of legal enforcement is the major cause of the stagnation of aircraft design and manufacturing."
'Murka is not like what it used to pretend to be.
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/09/why-dont-we-have-flying-cars.html
RegalBeagle
boosted
RegalBeagle
boosted
RegalBeagle
boosted
☃️
RegalBeagle
boosted
We could pay them per dead Mexican. And now you might say “John, they’ll just end up raiding Mexico to kill them for money whether they try to cross or not.” And to that I’d respond “Based.”
RT: https://poa.st/objects/98979caa-0232-40f6-9732-4157f1df07da
RT: https://poa.st/objects/98979caa-0232-40f6-9732-4157f1df07da
RegalBeagle
boosted
🇪 🇪 🇪
RegalBeagle
boosted
Sunday! Sunday! SOMEDAY! COME ON DOWN TO THE CIVIC CENTER AND MOTOR SPEEDWAY FOR THE MUGICHA MONSTER JUGGERNAUT JAM! Watch as JAMAHARIYA JOHNNY AND HIS JEET JUGGERNAUT attempt to jump over 100,000 Indians! beeeEEEEEEE THERRRRRREEEEE!
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Joined Nov 2022
